GENDER AND IMPRISONMENT DECISIONS

Guidelines sentencing data from Pennsylvania for the years 1985–1987 are analyzed to assess the influence of gender on judges' imprisonment decisions. These data provide detailed information on offense severity and prior record, permit statistical controls for other variables thought to affect imprisonment decisions, cover a fairly comprehensive list of common-law offenses (with adequate sample size), and contain judges' dispositional-departure reasons for sentences outside the guidelines schema. The data—analyzed with additive and interactive models–indicate that gender (net of other factors) has a small effect on the likelihood of imprisonment toward lesser jailing of female defendants but has a negligible effect on the length-of-imprisonment decision. Observations and interview responses from selected judges help to clarify the ways in which judges' sentencing practices are gender linked. Together, the statistical and the qualitative data suggest that the sentencing practices of judges are driven by two main concerns, blameworthiness (e.g., as indicated by prior record, type of involvement, remorse) and practicality (e.g., as indicated by child-care responsibility, pregnancy, emotional or physical problems, availability of adequate jail space). Based on our findings, we suspect that when men and women appear in (contemporary) criminal court in similar circumstances and are charged with similar offenses, they receive similar treatment. A major question from a policy perspective is, when gender disparities in sentence outcomes do arise, are the disparities warranted or unwarranted?     

DOES IMPRISONMENT ALTER THE LIFE COURSE? EVIDENCE ON CRIME AND EMPLOYMENT FROM A NATURAL EXPERIMENT

Ex‐prisoners consistently manifest high rates of criminal recidivism and unemployment. Existing explanations for these poor outcomes emphasize the stigmatizing effects of imprisonment on prisoners seeking postrelease employment as well as the deleterious effects of imprisonment on prisoners’ attitudes and capabilities. However, these explanations must be distinguished from selection effects in the criminal sentencing process, which also could explain some or all of these poor outcomes. To distinguish between criminogenic and selection explanations for ex‐prisoners’ postrelease experience, I analyze data from a natural experiment in which criminal cases were assigned randomly to judges with sizable sentencing disparities. Using these exogenous sentencing disparities, I produce unbiased estimates of the causal effects of imprisonment on the life course. The results of this analysis suggest that selection effects could be sufficiently large to account for prisoners’ poor postrelease outcomes because judges with large sentencing disparities in their use of imprisonment had similarly high caseload unemployment and criminal recidivism rates.     

SEX‐BASED DISPARITIES IN FELONY DISPOSITIONS BEFORE VERSUS AFTER SENTENCING REFORM IN OHIO*

Extending Koons‐Witt's (2002) study of whether sex‐based disparities in imprisonment likelihoods changed under sentencing guidelines in Minnesota, we examined similar models for Ohio with additional analyses of felony conviction likelihoods and sentence length for 5,472 felony defendants from twenty‐four trial courts. The main effects of a defendant's sex on imprisonment were significant during both periods (unlike the Minnesota findings), consistent with a chivalry perspective. Random coefficient models revealed that these effects were similar across the twenty‐four jurisdictions. Analyses also revealed significant postguideline reductions in sentence length disparities based on a woman's race and number of dependent children, yet increased disparities in imprisonment likelihoods postguidelines based on a woman's race and whether she was convicted on drug charges. These and other findings are discussed in the context of the Ohio legislature's implementation of a sentencing scheme that retains considerably more judicial discretion relative to Minnesota's template.     

Does Racial Balance in Workforce Representation Yield Equal Justice? Race Relations of Sentencing in Federal Court Organizations*

Increasing racial and ethnic group representation in justice‐related occupations is considered a potential remedy to racial inequality in justice administration, including sentencing disparity. Studies to date yield little evidence of such an effect; however, research limitations may account for the mixed and limited evidence of the significance of justice workforce racial diversity. Specifically, few studies consider group‐level dynamics of race and representation, thus failing to contextualize racial group power relations in justice administration. To consider these contextual dynamics we combine court organizational and case‐level data from 89 federal districts and use hierarchical models to assess whether variably “representative” work groups relate to district‐level differences in sentencing. Using district‐specific indexes of population and work group dissimilarity to define representation, we find no relationships between black judge representation and sentencing in general across districts, but that districts with more black representation among prosecutors are significantly less likely to sentence defendants to terms of imprisonment. We also find in districts with increased black representation among prosecutors, and to a lesser degree among judges, that black defendants are less likely to be imprisoned and white defendants are more likely to be imprisoned, with the effect of narrowing black‐white disparities in sentencing. Consistent with the “power‐threat” perspective, and perhaps “implicit racial bias” research, findings encourage modeling diversity to account for relative racial group power in processes of social control and suggest that racial justice may be moderately advanced by equal representation among authorities.     

The Time Penalty: Examining the Relationship Between Time to Conviction and Trial vs. Plea Disparities in Sentencing

Although studies of sentencing routinely find that defendants who plead guilty receive relatively lenient sentences compared with similarly situated defendants convicted by trial, we have yet to fully understand the role of “mode of conviction” in the sentencing process. In particular, we know little about how the size of the disparity between guilty pleas and trial convictions may depend upon time in case processing, or the timing of pleas; that is, when during the process defendants plead guilty. This is a considerable issue, as “time” often is central to explanations given for plea-trial disparities. The current study examines this central, yet seldom empirically captured, dimension of the sentencing process. Using information gathered in an ancillary data collection effort operated under the supervision of the American Terrorism Study, we differentiate between the mode of conviction and time to conviction and explore the role of “time” in sentence severity, especially with regard to the plea-trial disparity. While consisting of defendants identified in connection with terrorism investigations, and sentenced in federal courts, our study takes advantages of a unique opportunity to isolate the effects of time from the mode of disposition and to explore time correlates of sentencing outcomes. In doing so, we raise important questions about the multiple ways in which time and mode of conviction may affect sentencing more generally and contribute to the larger theoretical discussions of how punishment decisions are made.     

Displaced discretion under Ohio sentencing guidelines

The argument that curbing judicial sentencing discretion generates more prosecutorial discretion at earlier decision points in case processing received little empirical attention beyond Miethe's (1987) before/after study of the Minnesota guidelines. This article presents an examination of whether Ohio's sentencing reform resulted in significant changes in prosecutorial decisions related to indictment severity, dropped charges, charge reductions, and overall plea bargains. The implementation of determinate sentencing guidelines corresponded with a significant yet modest increase in the likelihood of charge reductions only. Some changes also occurred in the specific effects of various defendant characteristics on some of the outcomes examined, but these changes did not uniformly result in harsher dispositions for defendants facing greater social and economic disadvantage. Similar to Miethe's observation regarding Minnesota's sentencing scheme, any increase in levels of prosecutorial discretion that might have occurred under Ohio's latest scheme had not resulted in substantive extra-legal disparities in case dispositions.     

The Unintended consequences of sentencing reforms: Using social chain theory to examine racial disparities in Female imprisonment

The current study uses social chain theory to examine the potential unintended effects of sentencing reforms on racial disparities in female imprisonment. Our analysis measures changes in the relative odds of Black to White female imprisonment using the Relative Rate Index (RRI) through panel regression modeling on 40 states from 1983 to 2008. Our final models indicate that four types of sentencing reforms had unintended perverse effects on racial disparities in prison admissions while Truth in Sentencing laws increased racial disparities in time-served. Eighteen combinations of sentencing reforms also significantly impacted disparities. Theoretical and policy implications are also discussed.     

Examining the Impact of Ecological Contexts on Gender Disparity in Federal Sentencing

Gender disparity in sentencing outcomes has been well established in literature. Recent research has increasingly paid attention to social contexts within which judicial decision-making occurs. This study combines these two lines of research by dissecting the nature of gender disparity through ecological lenses. Using 2008–2010 federal sentencing data, we examine the roles of religious and political conservatism in affecting gender-based sentencing disparity. We find that religious and political conservatism reduces gender disparity, with the female discount dissipating in court communities with higher levels of religious and political conservatism. We also find that the conditioning effects of both religious conservatism and political conservatism on gender disparity further interact with race, with black female defendants more likely to be influenced by religious and political conservatism than their white counterparts. Overall, this study contributes to sentencing literature by demonstrating that gender disparity is deeply entrenched in the ecological contexts of court communities.     

Short‐ versus long‐term effects of Ohio's switch to more structured sentencing on extralegal disparities in prison sentences in an urban court*

Research Summary The impact of Ohio's presumptive guidelines on sentencing disparities was examined for one of the state's largest jurisdictions to determine whether the switch to more structured sentencing in 1996 had any enduring effects. Sentencing patterns were examined both before and shortly after the 1996 reform, as well as 9 years later. Findings revealed weaker race and marital status effects on imprisonment under guidelines versus stronger age effects, no changes in disparities based on a defendant's sex and means of support, and (virtually) no changes in the magnitude of legally relevant effects. Policy Implications Ohio's guidelines are more flexible relative to other guideline schemes, possibly accounting for the general stability in effects across regimes. Ohio has since transitioned to voluntary guidelines, which raised concerns that the change will yield higher levels of sentencing disparities. Findings suggest that the transition may coincide with no changes in legal effects, yet with greater disparities based on a defendant's race and marital status.     

SENTENCING AND UNWARRANTED DISPARITY: AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONG-TERM IMPACT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES IN MINNESOTA*

Using an interrupted time-series design, this research note analyzes the long-term effect of Minnesota's sentencing guidelines on reducing unwarranted disparity in sentencing outcomes that fall within their scope of authority. Unwarranted disparity is defined as residual variation not attributable to legally mandated sentencing factors. Findings suggest that although the sentencing guidelines initially reduced disparity for the no prison/prison sentencing decision, inequality began to revert to preguideline levels as time passed. Further analysis revealed that the guidelines had a permanent impact on reducing disparities in decisions on the length of prison sentence. Overall we observed an 18% decline in disparity for the no prison/prison outcome and a 60% reduction in inequality for the judicial decision as to length of prison sentence. Two explanations for the reversionary trend in the no prison/prison series are highlighted.     

Modeling the Distribution of Sentence Length Decisions Under a Guidelines System: An Application of Quantile Regression Models

How should sentencing disparity be assessed when decisions are constrained under a sentencing guidelines system? Much of the debate over the measurement of sentence disparity under a guidelines system has focused primarily on using specific values from within the sentencing grid (e.g., minimum recommended sentence) or on using interaction terms in regression models to capture the non-additive effects of offense severity and prior record on length of sentence. In this paper, I propose an alternative method for assessing sentencing disparity that uses quantile regression models. These models offer several advantages over traditional OLS analyses (and related linear models) of sentence length, by allowing for an examination of the effects of case and offender characteristics across the full distribution of sentence lengths for a given sample of offenders. The analysis of the distribution of sentence lengths with quantile regression models allows for an examination of questions such as: Do offender characteristics, such as race or offense severity, have the same effect on sentence length for the 10% of offenders who receive the shortest sentences as they do for the 10% of offenders who receive the longest sentences? I illustrate the application and interpretation of these models using 1998 sentencing data from Pennsylvania. Key findings show that the effects of case and offender characteristics are variable across the distribution of sentence lengths, meaning that traditional linear models assuming a constant effect fail to capture important differences in how case and offender characteristics affect punishment decisions. I discuss the implications of these findings for understanding sentencing disparitites, as well as other possible applications of quantile regression models in the study of crime and the criminal justice system.     

Reassessing the Influence of Criminal History in Federal Criminal Courts

Abstract

Prior sentencing research indicates that defendants with more extensive criminal histories receive more punitive dispositions and that criminal history influences sentencing decisions over and above its influence on the guideline recommended sentence. To date, these additional effects of criminal history have almost exclusively been treated as linear effects. However, there are plausible reasons to expect that criminal history could have curvilinear effects on sentencing outcomes that taper off at higher scores. The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential curvilinear effects of defendant criminal history on incarceration, sentence length, and downward departure decisions in federal criminal courts. The findings suggest that criminal history has curvilinear effects on each of these sentencing outcomes. As criminal history category increases, defendants receive more severe sentences, net of other factors, but only up to a certain threshold level, at which point criminal history effects taper off and even reverse.     

A Review of Sex Disparities in the “Key Players” of the Capital Punishment Process: From Defendants to Jurors

Extralegal disparities between defendants sentenced to the death penalty and those who receive life without parole disturb even the most resolute advocates of capital punishment. Extensive bodies of research document extralegal factors influencing death penalty outcomes. Although studies largely focus on race and ethnicity, a growing body of research considers the impact of sex on the capital sentencing process. This paper reviews the extant research on the impact of the sex of the victim, defendant, attorney, juror, and judge on capital case outcomes. Women’s scarcity on death row and a previously documented “female victim effect” condemning male defendants who kill female victims, particularly for those committing crimes of sexual degradation, suggests that death row policies and their implementation chivalrously protect female defendants and victims. Conversely, a limited amount of research documents a “domestic discount,” or greater leniency for death-eligible crimes commonly victimizing women than for those victimizing acquaintances or strangers. Although opinion polls document greater support for the death penalty among men than women, juror sex inconsistently predicts sentencing outcomes in the literature. Minimal research on judge and attorney sex finds female judges more liberal in death penalty sentencing than male judges and inconclusive relationships between attorney sex and adjudication. Findings in the research on sex and death penalty outcomes support the existence of a “sex effect” and inform recommendations for future research to expand the body of literature.     

Assessing the Influence of Familial Paternalism on Child Neglect Sentencing Decisions

Familial responsibilities have been found to significantly reduce the severity of sentencing outcomes of defendants in the criminal court. Additional research also has suggested that this leniency might be contingent on the type of offense, with defendants who commit crimes which imply that they are unfit parents (e.g., drug offenses) not receiving a significant reduction in their likelihood of incarceration. Utilizing familial paternalism as the theoretical basis, the current study examines whether having children influences the sentences of defendants charged with forms of criminal child neglect. The findings indicate that having children does result in significantly reduced odds of incarceration for defendants charged with child neglect. These findings support the arguments set forth by familial paternalism. However, they do not support the inference that defendants convicted of child neglect are presumed to be unfit parents. Implication of these results and directions for future research are discussed.     

Is the Process the Only Punishment?: Racial–Ethnic Disparities in Lower-Level Courts

Although misdemeanors make up the bulk of criminal cases in the United States, the majority of research on court decision-making examines felony sentencing. In contrast to felony courts, lower-level courts are characterized by higher case volumes and increased reliance on informal sanctions, which may contribute to greater racial–ethnic disparities. To assess this possibility, we examine pretrial detention and case processing outcomes for misdemeanants in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Utilizing temporal (detention time) and monetary (bond amount) measures of pretrial detention, we assess whether and to what extent there are racial–ethnic disparities in formal and informal sanctions facing misdemeanants. Results indicate that black defendants, especially black Latinx defendants, face greater informal sanctions (longer detention and higher bond amounts), are more likely to be convicted, and experience more severe formal sanctions than do white non-Latinx defendants. These findings complicate Feeley's (1979) argument about lower-level cases, revealing that black defendants are punished by both the court process and formal sanctions. In this way, “the process is the punishment” for lower-level white and nonwhite defendants, while the punishment is also the punishment for black defendants.     

FACIAL PROFILING: RACE,PHYSICAL APPEARANCE,AND PUNISHMENT*

We investigate the associations among physical appearance, threat perceptions, and criminal punishment. Psychological ideas about impression formation are integrated with criminological perspectives on sentencing to generate and test unique hypotheses about the associations among defendant facial characteristics, subjective evaluations of threatening appearance, and judicial imprisonment decisions. We analyze newly collected data that link booking photos, criminal histories, and sentencing information for more than 1,100 convicted felony defendants. Our findings indicate that Black defendants are perceived to be more threatening in appearance. Other facial characteristics, such as physical attractiveness, baby‐faced appearance, facial scars, and visible tattoos, also influence perceptions of threat, as do criminal history scores. Furthermore, some physical appearance characteristics are significantly related to imprisonment decisions, even after controlling for other relevant case characteristics. These and other findings are discussed as they relate to psychological research on impression formation, criminological theories of court actor decision‐making, and sociological work on race and punishment.     

CUMULATIVE DISADVANTAGE: EXAMINING RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITY IN PROSECUTION AND SENTENCING

Current research on criminal case processing typically examines a single decision‐making point, so drawing reliable conclusions about the impact that factors such as defendants’ race or ethnicity exert across successive stages of the justice system is difficult. Using data from the New York County District Attorney's Office that tracks 185,275 diverse criminal cases, this study assesses racial and ethnic disparity for multiple discretionary points of prosecution and sentencing. Findings from multivariate logistic regression analyses demonstrate that the effects of race and ethnicity vary by discretionary point and offense category. Black and Latino defendants were more likely than White defendants to be detained, to receive a custodial plea offer, and to be incarcerated—and they received especially punitive outcomes for person offenses—but were more likely to benefit from case dismissals. The findings for Asian defendants were less consistent but suggest they were the least likely to be detained, to receive custodial offers, and to be incarcerated. These findings are discussed in the context of contemporary theoretical perspectives on racial bias and cumulative disadvantage in the justice system.     

Direct and Indirect Effects of Case Complexity, Guilty Pleas, and Offender Characteristics on Sentencing for Offenders Convicted of a White-Collar Offense Prior to Sentencing Guidelines

Previous research on the punishment of offenders convicted of a white-collar offense estimated models that specify only direct effects of defendant characteristics, offense-related variables, and guilty pleas on sentence severity. Drawing from conflict or labeling theories, much of this research focused on the effects of offender's socioeconomic status on sentence outcomes. Findings from this research are inconsistent about the relationship between defendant characteristics and sentence severity. These studies overlook how differences in case complexity of white-collar offense and guilty pleas may intervene in the relationship between offender characteristics and sentence outcomes. This study seeks to contribute to an understanding of federal sentencing prior to the federal sentencing guidelines by testing a legal-bureaucratic theory of sentencing that hypothesizes an interplay between case complexity, guilty pleas and length of imprisonment. This interplay reflects the interface between the legal ramifications of pleading guilty, prosecutorial interests in efficiency and finality of case disposition in complex white-collar cases, and sentence severity. Using structural equation modeling, a four-equation model of sentencing that specifies case complexity and guilty pleas as intervening variables in the relationship between offender characteristics and length of imprisonment is estimated. Several findings are noteworthy. First, the hypothesized interplay between case complexity, guilty pleas, and sentence severity is supported. Second, the effect of offender's educational attainment on sentence severity is indirect via case complexity and guilty pleas. Third, offender's race and gender effect length of imprisonment both directly and indirectly through the intervening effect of case complexity and guilty pleas. These findings indicate the need to specify sentencing models that consider the direct and indirect effects of offender characteristics, offense characteristics, and guilty pleas on judicial discretion at sentencing.     

ETHNICITY AND JUDGES' SENTENCING DECISIONS: HISPANIC-BLACK-WHITE COMPARISONS

This study uses data on Pennsylvania sentencing practices to compare the sentence outcomes of white, black, and Hispanic defendants. Besides the overall more lenient treatment of white defendants, our main finding is that Hispanic defendants are the defendant subgroup most at risk to receive the harshest penalty. This pattern is held across all comparisons—i.e., for both the in/out and term-length decisions and for both drug and nondrug cases. These findings are consistent with the "focal concerns" framework on sentencing and with hypotheses drawn from the writings on prejudice and inter group hostility suggesting that the specific social and historical context facing Hispanic Americans will exacerbate perceptions of their cultural dissimilarity and the "threat" they pose.     

Difference, Disparity, and Race/Ethnic Bias in Federal Sentencing

Federal sentencing guidelines were enacted to reduce unwarranted disparities in sentencing. In this paper we examine the degree to which disparity in sentencing on the basis of race and ethnicity occurred in federal sentencing after the guidelines were implemented. We consider how much of the disparity is explained by offense-related factors as specified in the guidelines. We find that African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans receive relatively harsher sentences than whites and that these differentials are only partly explained by offense-related characteristics. We interpret our findings in light of attribution, uncertainty avoidance, and conflict theories.